Why we elect executives (and avoid legislators)

One of the regular comments about this election is that we will, for the third time in our history, elect a Senator to be President of the United States. This is remarkable when you consider that we have elected 43 Presidents, and many of them were re-elected (one of them multiple times). It isn't for lack of Senators running for the office, for many have.

But this year, of course, we have no choice: both candidates are Senators. In fact, one of them has chosen another Senator as his Vice Presidential running mate.

It is not surprising to me that quite a lot of the "debate" (such as it is) about this election is centered around experience. One side opened that can of worms by attacking the other on what was perceived as a glaring lack of experience. The other side had no chance to hit back until the Vice Presidents were both picked, and then (with disappointing predictability) tried to out-volume the first by claiming the Vice President pick had even less experience.

Nuances abound about types of experience, whether experience as a State legislator counts the same as a State governor, whether a mayor is as important as a community organizer, or whether a simple count of years can be used for comparison. Whatever your stance, it does not surprise me that experience is at the center of the debate.

The fact is, put as succinctly as I can (I will doubtless expound out of all reasonable proportion), what we really want is not experience, but accomplishments. That's why we elect (in overwhelming percentage) executives. Executive jobs lend themselves towards accomplishments, while legislative jobs by the very way we have set up our government, actually work against them. It takes a heck of a lot more effort and risk to accomplish something in a committee. Most legislative accomplishment is (ironically) achieved by simply building up tenure and being put in a pseudo-executive position (a committee chair).

Two of the three Senators in the race must keep the debate focused on experience and not on accomplishments, for the only executive in the race has, in a very short time, accomplished more than they have - whether they're new or 'seasoned' in the Senate.

Naturally, I wish more focus would be put on accomplishments. This is not merely voting or acting upon someone else's agenda, but having a goal or agenda and getting it accomplished or passed.

Experience is impressive in its own way, in the ability to pontificate on a topic and to know (if one has been paying attention the experience the way one must pay attention to history) what might happen as a result of current events, but accomplishments show what a person will do, not just what they will say. For all the 'talk' about 'walking the walk', legislators afford themselves very little runway. It's not who they are.